The video itself is well edited, and I am curious the response to it too.
@jongarvey @dga471 @deuteroKJ @Philosurfer
I like the Jesus/gospel focus, and how AiG does not represent all YECs by tying their YECism to the gospel so closely. I found it an interesting angle to focus on the âeven if literalâ angle, though obviously this format does allow all things to be addressed. The vegetarian issue, e.g., could go several directions, and deserves hard exegetical work. Alsoâand this might be my biggest negativeâthe idea that there is âno problemâ between evolution and a literal reading will come across glib (if thatâs the right word) to some. I know what you meanâŚbut thatâs b/c Iâm in these discussions. But itâs not easy & obvious to most (and people outside the garden is not an easy thing to swallow for them). Thus, I hope this doesnât come across as too much âinside baseballâ to onlookers with no background. Itâll be interesting to see the comments and any feedback.
But kudos to you and Paul for doing this. Great plug for Peaceful Science.
7 Likes
It seems to be quite effective.
Yeah I agree. Iâm no expert, but it seems that the dietary component of Genesis 1 is part and parcel of creating a sacred space set apart from others. It certainly doesnât preclude carnivory outside that sacred space or in violation of Gods wishes. The idea that death is not compatible with a Good God is just inconsistent with the later point in scripture where God endorsed eating meat. To the scripture conflict with this particular YEC theology (which many YEC donât hold) is strong.
Perhaps. The fact that I wrote a whole book on it makes pretty clear that there is substance behind my point.
I think it is a very effective sound bite because it grabs attention and provokes all the right questions in the end. Eg what is literal? Which literal reading? How could that be?
The point Iâm making is a brute fact. People outside the garden is part of the Genesis tradition going back thousands of years, long before evolution. We can establish this fact with evidence, and acknowledging this fact does not requiring âswallowingâ the idea in terms of personally believing it. This is just a historical fact.
Yes, many will have difficulty with this idea, just as many were troubled by the crazy notion of antipodians. But the fact that the tradition already includes the mystery outside the Garden raises a lot of question about why precisely they oppose it.
Likely many will still reject evolution. But on what grounds? They will need to find new reasons.
3 Likes
I just finished watching it. Aside from my many problems with your arguments (which I donât have the energy right now to point out/debate) as soon as I saw the link from Capturing Christianityâs meme I was wondering why you chose to be on his channel. I donât deserve an answer, but I was actually anxious for you @swamidass. My impression is that many Christian apologists donât feel he represents them fairly. My first thought was if that would be a problem for your relationships with some people by appearing on this channel. Perhaps not. I hope not.
But I had also wondered if you had done your homework before agreeing to the recording. I had thought about mentioning to you in the past that he had mentioned your argument in an interview I had watched and said he doesnât buy it and actually believes a YEC interpretation makes more sense of the Bible (Iâm not quoting exactly; just the sense of what he said.) I figured it wasnât a big deal to mention it when I heard it; your ideas are becoming better known. But now I wish I had. So I did not find Paulogia to be honest when it seemed he acted for a bit as if he didnât know exactly what your book was about. Iâm not sure which interview Paulogia mentioned this in, perhaps when Jon Steingard interviewed him. So then, Iâm not sure these commenters are wrong about Paulogiaâs motivation:
âNot sure i trust Bryanâs word over Godâs wordâŚâ
ââŚIn place of what God actually said in scriptureââGodâs wordâ here is simply Dr Swamidassâ interpretation of scripture. Iâm sure Bryan feels the same about not trusting Dr Swamidass word(interpretation) over what he believes is actually Godâs word.
Nothing new here, just Christians having problems with interpretation of their own scripture.Edit: the real entertainment here is the concept of this video and not the content. Paulogia knows exactly what heâs doing LOOL.
Pinecreek did a similar thing a few years ago. He got Mike Winger and an evolutionist Christian scientist on his show at the same time. Halfway through the show, Mike suddenly says âPinecreeks goal is to show me that Iâm denying evidence, and to show you (the other guest) that youâre denying scripture!â It took him a whole hour to figure that outâŚ
Overall, sadness doesnât describe my reaction. Grief is better.
1 Like
I did think through that quite a bit. I do not agree with Paulogia on many things, such as his argument against the Resurrection. But he also represented me in good faith, unlike Pinecreek. Those two are not the same category.
I do find it notable that many Christians are uncomfortable appearing on an atheist channel. Iâm not the first though. @sygarte also has, and interestingly enough it appears it was less controversial when he did.
In the end, I explain the gospel in an unexpected place. Even if you disagree with what I said of Genesis, surely you agree that with what I said if him. Right?
Grief. I donât understand why that is your reaction. I hope to learn more about why that was your response.
5 Likes
I follow several atheist channels on YouTube because I want to know what atheists are saying about Christians. Of the channels Iâve watched, including PineCreek and Aaron Ra, I think Paulogia is the most open to engaging with different Christian viewpoints. Heâs also unfailingly polite to people who disagree with him. I had to stop watching PineCreek because Doug is so angry.
I know Paulogiaâs critics say he misrepresents them, and maybe he has, but I havenât seen it. I think that overall he does a good job of accurately presenting their positions and he readily admits when he makes a mistake.
4 Likes
I am familiar with all these atheist channels (as well as Matt Dillahunty, Shannon Q, and others), but I am more familiar with MythVision Podcast by Derek Lambert and Digital Hammurabi by Dr. Joshua Bowen and his wife Megan Lewis (they are both assyriologist and they know the Hebrew Bible quite well).
I wont comment on motives on the part of Paul (who has collaborated with Matt D. and Shannon Q several times), but instead Iâll refer to this video by Ben Stanhope (a young MA graduate and author of (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible):
Animals Died Before the Fall - Where the Creation Museum Gets the Bible Wrong
I noticed that too, but took this to be a setup for @swamidass to plug his book - a deliberate leading question.
5 Likes
Bryan Osborne says: âcan we trust the text in context.â For him itâs âBiblical Authority.â This is the issue with them: their view of inspiration and inerrancy (or biblical authority). This is why on my blog I had started to dissect inspiration and inerrancy and I still have a long way to go.
âBryanâs word over Godâs wordâ:
AiG and Bryan are (1) concluding Biblical Authority means that the text must be in accord in some ways with modern discoveries in science [which is provably untrue], (2) the Bible is uniform all throughout [which is provably untrue, take a look at Canonicity and Textual Criticism]. Itâs not so uniform, fixed and rigid, is it?
âGenesis allows millions of years,â âgaps in the genealogies,â and âthereâs spaceâŚâ:
The only reason it appears that Genesis âallowsâ millions of years is precisely because of its literary structure, and its structure and content match much more the ANEâeither from the first millennium BCE (or some parts might stem from the second millennium BCE)âthan it ever would modern concerns in the sciences and history. Therefore, the âallowanceâ is not necessarily scientifically intentional, just coincidental for ANE purposes, not to actually allow millions of years Ă la evolutionary science. To say that it allows for millions of years is to not be aware of the rest of the Hebrew Bible which matches the ANE, overall. The genealogies are not written that way because it allows millions of years of evolution, but because of ancient literary practices with ANE thinking. This is why mostâbut not allâOld Testament and Semitic scholars will align with the ANE as the primary framework in which to interpret the OT because the OT has features that directly join into the ANE. The scholarly OT outliers out there who agree with YEC or OEC (such as Dr. William D. Barrick, who defends YEC independently from Wheaton College) do so because of their own view of Biblical Authority, not because of objective data in science and the Hebrew Bible.
Nevertheless, your conclusion that, âThe Bible doesnât really tells usâ is still correct, but that is accidental because it appears that you still need to see how the OT matches the ANE much more than it would ever superficially resemble something scientific in our modern understanding and conversations.
Again, I recommend Ben Stanhopeâs video about death and fall above, which is far more cogent and learned on Genesis.
For the rest of the video, I agreed with most of your statements about dietary laws/rules and the rest of your overall understanding about the Gospel message and the resurrection. Itâs correct that âvery goodâ does not equal âperfectâ. Even Adam and Eve were not âperfectâ (infallible?) before being expelled and prevented from approaching the Tree of Life. Only if they would have accessed the Tree of Life would they have become âperfectâ or, actually, immortal. Adam and Eve were not immortal according to the text, otherwise the Tree of Life has no place in the story. All this echoes much more mortality/immortality and trees of life in Mesopotamian literature than it does our modern scientific and historical concerns.
- Notes:
For canonicity, I recommend Mike Liconaâs 5-part series (I think itâs 5 parts) with Martin Lee McDonald on OT Canonicity. You will see that YECâs view of Inspiration and Inerrancy (and anyone else who holds to fundamentalism) cannot work out smoothly.
For the resurrection, I recommend Mike Liconaâs 4-part interviews with NT historian Dale Allison. As much as I like Mike Licona, my current understanding of the resurrection and first-century history leans towards Prof. Dr. Larry W. Hurtadoâs understanding as well as young NT scholar Laura Robinson who had an exchange with Mike Licona not long ago about their disagreements on what can be known on the resurrection. The resurrection cannot be securely, historically inferred as far as the data goâin accordance with Hurtado, Robinson, and Allison. Matt Dillahaunty, consequently, is superficially correct that the resurrection cannot be secured thus far. Mike Licona, along with Garry Habermas, argue that it could be securely inferred from the data as well as near-death experiences, other metaphysical phenomena, and the Shroud of Turin. Im not so sureâŚ
3 Likes
See Dr. Joshua Bowenâs piece over Paulogia is cogent:
The Bible isnât a Timeline (feat. Joshua Bowen) - Evolution Exposed Exposed
I recommend Dr. Joshua Bowenâs YouTube Channel Digital Hammurabi even if he is an atheist (he was a Christian a while ago and deconverted). The scholarship is correct, although I would not share all his conclusions.
- My current understanding of Genesis 1 is that it exhibits 7 normal days (24 hours is not an ancient understanding of daysâfor them it was daylight), and so it appears that YEC is interpreting this part correctly, but they donât because than they force that understanding into their scientific interpretation. Genesis 1 exhibits 7 days from an ANE perspective, not from a modern, scientific perspective. Thatâs the issue with YEC. Old-earth creationism is wrong not because of the science (esp. Astronomy) but because of what they do to the Bible. (Dr. Michael S. Heiser, for example, has already discussed how Dr. Hugh Ross goes off the rails with OEC).
1 Like
These are more charitable reads of him. But yet why would you bring in a Christian guest whose position you believe is not a good interpretation of the Bible explain why anotherâs position is against the gospel unless you just enjoy lighting a match and watching it burn? That was my concern as soon as I realized @swamidass was on the show.
Earlier that day I had watched Sean McDowell explain exactly how Paulogia misrepresented him.
Iâm not sure whether Paulogia enjoys portraying himself as polite and even-handed or actually is polite. Obviously Iâm not a fan. 
But all of us are sinners, so I donât actually expect him to be perfectly polite either.
@swamidass you mentioned that Bryan had said animal death was âintrinsically evilâ - was this in a slide off video? Because I didnât hear it in Paulogiaâs video and it is a problem if he said it, but if not, it is obviously a straw man. Although there are many things on my list, I thought that may have been the biggest misrepresentation if he didnât say it.
It got drowned out after you saying temporary beings can bring more joy and are very good. You presented the core of the gospel as âJesus rose from the dead and He is good.â That isnât the gospel. The gospel is that we are sinners, Christ died for us, and He rose again so that we know we will also have eternal life with God.
Meanwhile Bryan had said rejecting death before sin rejects the foundation of Christâs atonement. Then again you said he was saying YEC is the foundation of the Christian faith (I didnât hear that in the part of the presentation Bryan gave, but it is something Iâve heard you accuse AIG of before), and you laid no foundation for Christâs atonement in your presentation of the gospel. What does it matter if Jesus is good if we are too? And this temporary life is very good too?
Also I reread Genesis 3. The text literally states that Adam and Eve would live forever if they were not exiled from the garden. It does not literally say that that the exile is how death came upon them. God introduced death pronouncements before that.
The grief was in all of that - the forum where I did not trust the intentions of the interviewer, the strawmans from my POV, and just lack of charity among Christians on this issue always makes me sad. Weâre so busy to prove a point that we do not listen and consider others better than ourselves.
It did not come up in his presentation or yours, but I think itâs such a given in the OT we forget WHY weâre even talking about animal death - what does that have to do with Jesus⌠ButâŚanimal sacrifices! Obviously they point to Jesusâ atoning work, so if animals died before man sinned, can their deaths still point to Christ? Itâs a question worth asking about how this fits into biblical interpretation. Animal death being âintrinsically evilâ is obviously not true or Seth could not have brought a sacrifice. Thatâs why I think itâs important to clarify whether Bryan said it or not. As far as I read the Bible, actions and thoughts are evil because they are against Godâs commandments. âIntrinsically evilâ doesnât actually make sense. And death is something that happens to us; itâs a punishment.
Anyway, if we leave out the importance of animal death as atonement in the old covenant in this conversation, I think it may lead to more confusion and a lack of clarity in the conversation. Just thought of that after watching.
Not quite. The text literally says that they would live forever if they ate from the Tree of Life, and they were exiled quickly in order to prevent them from doing that. Thus they were mortal while in the Garden.
6 Likes
Thanks for the correction.
That doesnât necessarily follow perhaps.
I donât think thatâs what Paulogia did. It seems he was onboard with Joshâs interpretation of Genesis, even though they disagree about other sections of the Bible. But letâs say he doesnât agree with Josh about anything. I can still see why he would invite Josh on his show to educate people, particularly Christians, that there is more than one Christian viewpoint on matters not essential to salvation. I encourage my students to read authors I disagree with all the time. Sometimes an author I donât agree with on certain things will have a really good rebuttal to another author I also happen to disagree with. For example, I donât agree with Todd Woodâs ideas about YEC, but I think he has some excellent responses to certain ideas coming from other YECâs, such as Ken Ham. And since Wood is YEC, my YEC leaning students are more willing to consider critiques coming from him than if they came from me. I donât do it to set off fireworks, I do it get my students to consider different views. I would be doing them a disservice if I only had them read authors I agree with 100% - assuming I could even find one.
ETA: I once directed a student to an article on AiGâs website to read why the argument âlaminins are shaped like a crossâ is bad apologetics and they should stop saying it. Should I not have done that?
6 Likes
We are indeed all sinners, but you havenât provided any real justification for your claim that Paul was being dishonest.
1 Like
No perhaps about it. That does indeed necessarily follow. Do you need an explanation?
4 Likes
He says pretty clearly that animal death is not compatible with God being good. Do you dispute that?
Actually, I asked him specifically about motivation, and this wasnât it.
He rejects Christianity, but also respects my work, seeing common cause. Personally, he feels as though he was duped by dishonest YECs in his upbringing, and that is why he critiques them so harshly. It is personal for him. But at the same time, he did no think it would be sensible for an atheist to critique their theology. Instead, he wanted to be charitable to Christianity by allowing a Christian to critique it.
4 Likes
That was pretty interesting actually. Unless he was totally putting on an act, it really seemed like he saw a lot of sense in how I looked at Scripture.
It is notable that he stated that the issue was the top down structure of AIG, where Hams interpretation is taken as God word. That is important, because by making that point he is acknowledging that the issue isnât with the Bible per se, but with Hamâs interpretation of it.
That of course was precisely my argument. So of course I agree. Rather, we agree on that.
3 Likes
I agree that people should always read different views - partially why Iâm here 
And why I sometimes listen to Paulogia or recently PineCreek and Jon Steingard or sometimes interviews from other Christians I donât agree with. I also donât agree with my family or people in my church on lots of issues, but still consider what they say. Sometimes I have to take breaks from atheist skepticism though. Spending time reading the Bible or a good book is much more enjoyable.
I know weâve covered this before last year sometime, but I donât remember what you had said. Since Iâm inclined to agree with your interpretation, if you have a concise explanation, sure, Iâll take it to see if my âperhapsâ was unwarranted.
Sigh. I really donât want to watch the video again to see exactly what he said. But again, this is a strawman. Obviously he did say that it is not compatible with creation being called very good. Iâm not sure how he can say animal death is not compatible with God being good, if there is death today. If you have an exact quote otherwise, please share.
@swamidass In informal contexts, and especially when you critique creationists, I think you are often far too loose with words. You know that I am a stickler with words. Often I agree with @John_Harshman when heâs frustrated by vague responses here in the forum. Words matter, and here they are the difference between gigantic strawmen and correctly representing someoneâs position. Speaking of cartoons, the picture you paint of creationists is often a cartoon and seems like a profile youâve built up in your own head around your own change of thinking from my POV. Especially this bothers me when youâre on an atheistâs channel obviously. So Iâm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you need to be more precise with words, rather than that youâre deliberately misrepresenting positions, or that youâre putting words in peopleâs mouths based on what you think theyâre saying rather than what youâre actually saying. I do hope you are wanting to precisely understand their arguments.
Well, I would not expect him to be honest if that was his motivation, yikes. Why would you agree to come on then?
So after these two responses, I couldnât help but re-listen to Jon Steingardâs interview with him, as I thought that was where he mentioned you/your book. His reference there wasnât exactly like I remember it, so I either remembered it slightly wrong, or Paulogia mentioned you another time in a different interview and that sticks out to me more. Iâm quite certain he did make another mention as I remember him specifically saying he leans toward the Ken Ham interpretation as being more valid, along with reference to GAE. Either way, listening to it helped me clarify his motivation for his channel, why he might come off to me the wrong way, etc.
But @swamidass I do think youâre misunderstanding Paul and his view of your way of looking at Scripture too, unless heâs changed his mind in a few months since the interview. I do think itâs obvious his issue is with the Bible and its truthfulness, not the truth of any one interpretation. Iâll link the video and point out some time stamps I thought were more important in that regard. I didnât take note of the section, but he also generally talks about not liking top-down structures because then people donât think through things for themselves.
at around 10:00 - Paulogia explains in his channel he thinks of his audience as Christians possibly questioning things and talks to them as if he were himself 5 years ago. (This explains why his videos sometimes feel like an act to me I think; heâs deliberately deciding to speak to Christians in a particular way that maybe doesnât reflect everything heâs currently thinking.)
25:40 - 26:40 - He explains he left Christianity in part (Iâm summarizing) because he found Hamâs interpretation too rigid, and Craigâs too loose, so he began to wonder if the Bible was just wrong
37:30 - 38:30 - He explains that he thought Jesus believed in a historical Adam (so that made him question Jesus is the implication). Here he references @swamidass and theories around common descent. Implication from my POV is he knows people try to reconcile these things; but it hasnât changed his mind on the Bible.
1:05:00 - 1:11:00 - (Since there was a lot of talk in the interview about temporary life and whether that was good, I think Christians should grapple with what they as atheists say here and what that means for the discussion of origins and how we think about life) Jon and Paul reference temporary life and rarity giving life more meaning than Christian ideas of eternity
2 Likes
Once you discover your own propensity to rationalize the world around you to be compatible with your beliefs, it becomes all the more clear when you see others do it. When you step behind the curtain and look back, itâs so obvious this is what is going on.
The Bible âhas so many layersâ in which it can be understood, so many stories and morals. Some people even rationalize that when it doesnât make sense then itâs supposed to not make sense. The ultimate rationalization: Itâs ambiguity is intended, because this very ambiguity somehow fosters the capacity to keep people coming back to it to try to make sense of it.
You have no idea what this looks like from the outside.
Now add the knowledge that extant religions are essentially cultural memes that themselves evolved to their present forms from previous religions, by having the properties that spur people to propagate them to their offspring and people around them.
The magic trick is ruined when the magician shows you the actual trick.
3 Likes